FRONTPAGE AMD FX-8150 - Bulldozer - Processor Review

Robert17 · Oct 15, 2011

http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/di...x_AMD_Engineer_Explains_Bulldozer_Fiasco.html

I managed to foul up my last post; here's what I was referring to.......

SuperDave1685 · Oct 15, 2011

So when I read the review I was like

And then I was like

Apht3rThawt · Oct 15, 2011

Server farms in Iceland. We know that BD produces heat, 240 watts at load at stock speeds, over 500 watts oced. It sucks at single threaded applications and is designed for multi-threading, which most consumer apps aren't. It fits the G34 Opteron socket as a drop in. Professional and workstation apps use multi-threading and in fact many are n-threaded, meaning as many threads as cores, or modules. AMD is depending on compilers in the future to take advantage of the multi-threading of BD/Zambezi; Windows 8 will have a better time with BD than current oses. The architecture of BD is such that it is a future chip, albeit with some problems. Server farms are being located in cold climates to take advantage of colder ambient temperatures, so heat will be cycled off without so much active cooling. In fact it may be a good choice for servers but not the low level, home style servers most of us think of. On the one hand, it sucks as a consumer chip, but will probably be a great server chip at parallel processing. The other side is that AMD did put the GPU/CPU engineers together. BD may get better as they fine-tune the stepping and compilers catch up but right now we see the problems for us consumers. It will depend on future software compilers to make BD into what it can be.

Xterra · Oct 15, 2011

Apht3rThawt said:
Server farms in Iceland. We know that BD produces heat, 240 watts at load at stock speeds, over 500 watts oced. It sucks at single threaded applications and is designed for multi-threading, which most consumer apps aren't. It fits the G34 Opteron socket as a drop in. Professional and workstation apps use multi-threading and in fact many are n-threaded, meaning as many threads as cores, or modules. AMD is depending on compilers in the future to take advantage of the multi-threading of BD/Zambezi; Windows 8 will have a better time with BD than current oses. The architecture of BD is such that it is a future chip, albeit with some problems. Server farms are being located in cold climates to take advantage of colder ambient temperatures, so heat will be cycled off without so much active cooling. In fact it may be a good choice for servers but not the low level, home style servers most of us think of. On the one hand, it sucks as a consumer chip, but will probably be a great server chip at parallel processing. The other side is that AMD did put the GPU/CPU engineers together. BD may get better as they fine-tune the stepping and compilers catch up but right now we see the problems for us consumers. It will depend on future software compilers to make BD into what it can be.

I tend to agree mostly that BD took a step backwards in order to move forwards. AMD over hyped the chip and their vacuumed sealed NDA destroyed consumer confidence by not being able to *beat* Intel. This isn't an engineering failure, its a flawed marketing and business model that, unfortunately came from the top.

DaveB · Oct 15, 2011

bmwbaxter said:
Intel I guess is taking a page out of AMD's book and undercutting them to get more sales.

The i5 2500K has been available at Microcenter stores for $179 since they came out. So, no undercutting required.

bmwbaxter · Oct 15, 2011

DaveB said:
The i5 2500K has been available at Microcenter stores for $179 since they came out. So, no undercutting required.

the 8150 was always priced above 2500k for a reason. it is a "better" chip... if you have programming coded for more cores and an operating system that fixes AMD's screw up.

Archer0915 · Oct 15, 2011

http://www.techreaction.net/forums/showpost.php?p=33952&postcount=315

If true I am still peed at amd but I will be happy with the competition.

neo668 · Oct 15, 2011

Archer0915 said:
http://www.techreaction.net/forums/showpost.php?p=33952&postcount=315

If true I am still peed at amd but I will be happy with the competition.

Thanks for the link.

"By most estimates the AMD Bulldozer FX is underperforming by 40-70% in most Windows 7 benchmarks."

If you can get a 40%-70% improvement that would be very good news.

hokiealumnus · Oct 15, 2011

Archer0915 said:
http://www.techreaction.net/forums/showpost.php?p=33952&postcount=315

If true I am still peed at amd but I will be happy with the competition.

I put exactly zero credence in that article. You know why?

The one thing that is for-sure here is that every hardware review website rushed to be the first to publish an AMD FX-8150 review, they all used the same generic benchmarks and NONE did any real world computing. The game is fixed, the big-dog spreads around the most ad-dollars.

That dude doesn't have a freaking clue what he's talking about. You know how many "ad-dollars" Intel spends around here? Go ahead, guess. None. Nada. Zilch. Same with many hardware sites. Intel doesn't exactly need to throw around ad money to get recognized.

The CPU performed poorly in benchmarks, but did well in real-world tests. I outlined all of that from both sides and made it perfectly clear, as did many other sites. This dude is nothing but a fanboy with no proof. His 'proof' is that it performs well in real-world (read: rendering/encoding/etc) benchmarks. Well thanks dude, we know that.

I'll eat my hat if there is ever a Windows patch that produces "40-70% more performance". If there ever is a patch, then it may improve performance, but no Windows patch can turn water into wine.

Archer0915 · Oct 15, 2011

hokiealumnus said:
I put exactly zero credence in that article. You know why?

That dude doesn't have a freaking clue what he's talking about. You know how many "ad-dollars" Intel spends around here? Go ahead, guess. None. Nada. Zilch. Same with many hardware sites. Intel doesn't exactly need to throw around ad money to get recognized.

The CPU performed poorly in benchmarks, but did well in real-world tests. I outlined all of that from both sides and made it perfectly clear, as did many other sites. This dude is nothing but a fanboy with no proof. His 'proof' is that it performs well in real-world (read: rendering/encoding/etc) benchmarks. Well thanks dude, we know that.

I'll eat my hat if there is ever a Windows patch that produces "40-70% more performance". If there ever is a patch, then it may improve performance, but no Windows patch can turn water into wine.

Hey hold fire. I am just a messanger I did not write the message. I am very skeptical of this I did say "If true".

Personally I think all of the testing that was done by everyone that had these processors for review was great and even though all tests may not have been to everyones satisfaction, when you have a time limit there is only so much you can do. When things trend toward the crap pile just looking for something that shines can call into question the reviewer and cause the person doing the review to lose credibility.

The one thing that is for-sure here is that every hardware review website rushed to be the first to publish an AMD FX-8150 review, they all used the same generic benchmarks and NONE did any real world computing. The game is fixed, the big-dog spreads around the most ad-dollars.

I agree with your views on this.

hokiealumnus · Oct 15, 2011

Archer0915 said:
Hey hold fire. I am just a messanger I did not write the message. I am very skeptical of this I did say "If true".

I do just want to clear this up for everyone that sees my post - absolutely none of my rant was aimed at Archer. He's just the messenger and has nothing at all to do with the guy that posted that. Please don't misconstrue my post as having anything at all to do with Archer, it was all to the dude that wrote that nonsensical post.

Better?

Seebs · Oct 15, 2011

hokiealumnus said:
I do just want to clear this up for everyone that sees my post - absolutely none of my rant was aimed at Archer. He's just the messenger and has nothing at all to do with the guy that posted that. Please don't misconstrue my post as having anything at all to do with Archer, it was all to the dude that wrote that nonsensical post.

Better?

\Off topic...
LOL... You best be careful hokie... Archer owns lots of guns and knows how to use them; he's been getting ready for the zombie apocalypse for a long time now.

/Off Topic

And on the subject of BD and that article Archer pointed to. I have Win8, does anyone want to send me BD and the "miracle" patch? I'd be happy to test it out for you guys.

Theocnoob · Oct 15, 2011

The "It's meant for Win 8" thing is only the latest in a string of boy who cried wolf style moves.

Lie, delay, lie, delay, delay, cringe, release, make people cry, lie again.

vdgamer · Oct 15, 2011

Is the only difference between 8150 and 8120 are stock core clocks or is there something else? Because 8150 is $60 more on newegg

buffalowings · Oct 15, 2011

xXSebaSXx said:
\Off topic...
LOL... You best be careful hokie... Archer owns lots of guns and knows how to use them; he's been getting ready for the zombie apocalypse for a long time now.
/Off Topic

And on the subject of BD and that article Archer pointed to. I have Win8, does anyone want to send me BD and the "miracle" patch? I'd be happy to test it out for you guys.

guns you say?.. hmm...any bows?

Theocnoob · Oct 15, 2011

vdgamer said:
Is the only difference between 8150 and 8120 are stock core clocks or is there something else? Because 8150 is $60 more on newegg

Major difference in cache. Like 3MB I think.
Also the 8150 contains 20% more broken dreams.

bmwbaxter · Oct 15, 2011

vdgamer said:
Is the only difference between 8150 and 8120 are stock core clocks or is there something else? Because 8150 is $60 more on newegg

stock core clock is basically it. but since the 8150 is clocked higher it is 'probably' binned a bit higher. but you might get a 8120 that will overclock higher than a 8150. it is mostly luck of the draw.

EDIT: @ ocnoob - they have the same amount of cache. both have 8MB L2 and 8MB L3

vdgamer · Oct 15, 2011

So 8120 is a better buy without question, what about 6100 how does it compare to thuban 1100 and 1090? There priced very evenly

dihartnell · Oct 15, 2011

Apht3rThawt said:
Server farms in Iceland. We know that BD produces heat, 240 watts at load at stock speeds, over 500 watts oced.

Hell I hope they dont sell too many. I'll have to get to higher ground so when the Polar Ice caps melt, I'll be ok. Global warming could be an AMD plot. :-/

bmwbaxter · Oct 15, 2011

vdgamer said:
So 8120 is a better buy without question, what about 6100 how does it compare to thuban 1100 and 1090? There priced very evenly

well if the thubans beat an 8150 then they should easily beat a 6100.

FRONTPAGE AMD FX-8150 - Bulldozer - Processor Review

How happy are you with AMD FX-8150 price/performance?

1 (What a disappointment)

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10 (Everything I hoped for)

Premium Member

Member

Member

Member

Senior Member

Member

"The Expert"

Member

Water Cooled Moderator

"The Expert"

Water Cooled Moderator

Fronting as a Mod Member

Member

Member

Registered

Member

Member

Member

Registered

Member

Similar threads